The_White_Lodge, you said " by developing a strong sense of what is actually good, what is evil became much more obvious.

For example, I don't think anyone can truly appreciate just how immoral, manipulative and degenerate Hollywood movies are until they've seen a few of the great operas of the 19th century. By contrast, the white magic of Verdi allows one to see the black magic of Disney.

The same logic would apply to the political schema as well. The manipulation of power, and the tactics at work become much more apparent when one has a firm grasp on what proper use of power is."

Hi, I only recently discovered your forum. I know of only one other (not Miles) which sees through so many hoaxes snaked out by the nutworks. I'm American and live in Central Coast California. I want to share aspects of my own knowledge which I don't see in Cluesforum commentary-- or indeed anywhere-- and I want to learn more about economics. If anyone can offer any detail or links regarding a better economic system; so far the best I've seen is Modern Monetary Theory. I would welcome commentary on it and/or other alternatives. Perhaps I've not found some existing economic commentary on the forum.

Areas of expertise: debunking hoaxed events (I recognized and argued against the falsity of the 9/11 narrative from the very first moment I was aware of the event); debunking major political distractions to identify overlooked, far more significant political processes; a minor background in aviation; knowledge of medical misinformation.

I would like to comment briefly on the thread "Impossibility of Space Travel" though I can offer no potential resolution to the question. I would like (later) to open a nontechnical thread on the double-slit experiment; I became interested in Miles' site because my own partial resolution has the same starting assumption. However I, like you, am skeptical of the site-- notably his comments on chemtrails (just a way to illicitly dispose of industrial waste!); nature of time; JFK assassination hoax (slight, goofy motivation offered). I haven't read very much of his stuff yet.

I try to remain immune to the two most common obstacles to attaining truth:--The error of sticking dogmatically to one's present conclusions, to the exclusion of countervailing evidence.--The error of allowing emotional experience to freeze our convictions ("I felt sympathy when I saw that victim, so it must be true").

It is especially valuable to me to "speak" to others who question everything and therefore continue to grow in truth-- and therefore in the ablity to combat whom I call "the usurpers".

Penelope wrote:I recognized and argued against the falsity of the 9/11 narrative from the very first moment I was aware of the event.

Based on what evidence?

Penelope wrote:I, like you, am skeptical of the site [...] I haven't read very much of his stuff yet.

I would suggest reading the pi=4 story in the dedicated thread before you nose-dive into the world of MM. viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1758----------------------------edit: I had forgotten the topic was moved to a separate thread: cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1925

Flabbergasted,WillyLoman.wordpress.com also catches most hoaxes, but sometimes identifies them as only false flags. They're not rigorous & their epistemology is all screwed up, with too much reliance on trying to think backward from the narrative offered.

My immediate identification of the 9/11 narrative as false occurred like this: I was at a rest stop just north of Oceanside, CA. A friend came up, tapped on the window, "Do you have your radio on? A highjacked plane hit the World Trade Center and it fell down."--Don't be silly. You mean a piece fell off."No, the whole thing fell down."--Impossible. Consider the difference in mass."Well, it was the burning jet fuel. It melted the girders."--Not possible. The fuel is all contained in wing tanks, you know. Not enough-- besides, you can't melt steel outside of a forge & not even in an ordinary forge. That's why the Chinese backyard steel project failed. (Person I was talking to was Chinese; thought he might remember the story.) You could make iron horseshoes. That's about it."Well, that's what they're saying on the radio!"--Something of this magnitude and with the media in on it is always an intelligence operation.

I don't know why I added the last comment. My mouth running ahead of my brain I guess.

The subsequent "pancaking of the floors" story I didn't find credible. That cartoon of the plane cutting right through the building was the one that shook me-- it frightened & deeply disappointed me that people could believe such a thing.

Thanks I'll check the pi link. I just glossed MM's article on pi. No time to be interested in that, but I'll check the link anyway as a means to get more insight into MM. I notice most of his hoax-busting, if that's what it is, is safely in the past. He does cover some current hoaxes, but never anything "Big Picture."

I haven't bothered to copy quotes here, since there is no thread & this is just below yours; hope that's ok.

I’ve studied physics at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, and finished with my degree in 1996.I’ve worked for almost 10 years in ICT, and since then schooled myself in law, as my own attorneys stepped me in the back in several court cases, including a 10-year-running against the Rothschild and Dutch Royal family affiliated ABN AMRO bank.Because of several publications in the Dutch state media by corrupt attorneys I’m unable to get a job.

Since 2015, I’ve been collecting information on a variety of topics: false flags, genocide, WW II, AIDS, psychiatry, paedophilia, Donald Trump, etc. The result is that I could post about a lot of topics.I didn’t see a subsection on Cluesforum where I could post about medical issues.

Regularly the things that I write get deleted from forums and blatantly omitted from the internet search results.

Penelope » January 20th, 2018, 4:07 am wrote:I want to share aspects of my own knowledge which I don't see in Cluesforum commentary-- or indeed anywhere-- and I want to learn more about economics. If anyone can offer any detail or links regarding a better economic system; so far the best I've seen is Modern Monetary Theory. I would welcome commentary on it and/or other alternatives. Perhaps I've not found some existing economic commentary on the forum.

This book is mostly about how the World Bank and IMF sabotage the third world. Greg Palast doesn’t go all the way though, he has worked as an “investigative journalist” for the BBC, and for some reason he never criticises the British Royal family.In a way his book is the better version of Joseph Stiglitz or “Economic Hit Man” John Perkins (financed by Rockefeller...).If anybody has got something better, please let me know.

He has written about how George W. Bush stole the 2000 elections, but wasn’t able to expose the truth on 9/11.

What’s also interesting, is that Greg Palast has been reported as a class mate of none other than Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock.Naturally Palast has taken the 1 October “mass shooting” for what it has been reported in the media…

I’ve studied physics at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, and finished with my degree in 1996.I’ve worked for almost 10 years in ICT, and since then schooled myself in law, as my own attorneys stepped me in the back in several court cases, including a 10-year-running against the Rothschild and Dutch Royal family affiliated ABN AMRO bank.Because of several publications in the Dutch state media by corrupt attorneys I’m unable to get a job.

Since 2015, I’ve been collecting information on a variety of topics: false flags, genocide, WW II, AIDS, psychiatry, paedophilia, Donald Trump, etc. The result is that I could post about a lot of topics.I didn’t see a subsection on Cluesforum where I could post about medical issues.

Regularly the things that I write get deleted from forums and blatantly omitted from the internet search results.

Penelope » January 20th, 2018, 4:07 am wrote:I want to share aspects of my own knowledge which I don't see in Cluesforum commentary-- or indeed anywhere-- and I want to learn more about economics. If anyone can offer any detail or links regarding a better economic system; so far the best I've seen is Modern Monetary Theory. I would welcome commentary on it and/or other alternatives. Perhaps I've not found some existing economic commentary on the forum.

This book is mostly about how the World Bank and IMF sabotage the third world. Greg Palast doesn’t go all the way though, he has worked as an “investigative journalist” for the BBC, and for some reason he never criticises the British Royal family.In a way his book is the better version of Joseph Stiglitz or “Economic Hit Man” John Perkins (financed by Rockefeller...).If anybody has got something better, please let me know.

He has written about how George W. Bush stole the 2000 elections, but wasn’t able to expose the truth on 9/11.

What’s also interesting, is that Greg Palast has been reported as a class mate of none other than Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock.Naturally Palast has taken the 1 October “mass shooting” for what it has been reported in the media…

Firestarter, it seems to me if your baseline for judgement of research has to do with quite mainstream/profitable books like Confessions of an Economic Hitman, then you haven't really started your journey of original research but are only sifting through existing trends and arguments trying to find answers.

This will become a problem if you, for example, find yourself down a "conspiracy theory" that the 9/11 operatives have set up for you.

Have you ever tried writing on something that nobody has reported before you?

Do you understand the concepts of September Clues? Can you share your personal view (one that you haven't merely read somewhere) of what "the truth" of 9/11 is, as you put it?

Firestarter, it seems to me if your baseline for judgement of research has to do with quite mainstream/profitable books like Confessions of an Economic Hitman, then you haven't really started your journey of original research but are only sifting through existing trends and arguments trying to find answers.

If you think that I base my "research" on John Perkins, obviously you haven't read my last post, or don't understand and/or don't even care...I don't believe that you've read "The best democracy money can buy" and conclude don't have a "clue"...

This will become a problem if you, for example, find yourself down a "conspiracy theory" that the 9/11 operatives have set up for you.

Have you ever tried writing on something that nobody has reported before you?

Do you understand the concepts of September Clues? Can you share your personal view (one that you haven't merely read somewhere) of what "the truth" of 9/11 is, as you put it?

You're kidding right?The 9/11 story was so ridiculous that only completely brainwashed people didn't see this for the charade it was. I mean: there has never been any high building that imploded by anything else than a controlled demolition.

I often try to find sources that are close to the truth, but conclude that the only way to find the truth is to combine different stories, and put the pieces together.I once made the mistake to join rationalskepticism.org, and got more than 200 ad hominem attacks in a couple of weeks before being banned.I think that I've made another mistake: you close your eyes to what is going on, because you're not even interested in looking behind the first line of distraction "news", and ironically because of this, you are always one step behind the without having any "clue" what's going on.

Firestarter wrote:I often try to find sources that are close to the truth, but conclude that the only way to find the truth is to combine different stories, and put the pieces together.

You can make a collage of different stories to inflate competing truths. How do you explain the circular idea that truth is something you already know and yet the way to find truth is to support that pre-existing concept?

It sounds like you assume something is true and then piece stories together to make it seem even more true to yourself. That doesn't sound like truth. It sounds like a way of insulating yourself from doubt. Have you tried any "on the ground" research some time?

I once made the mistake to join rationalskepticism.org, and got more than 200 ad hominem attacks in a couple of weeks before being banned.

Sorry that happened to you. Do you think you might have done anything to annoy the members of that forum first?

I think that I've made another mistake: you close your eyes to what is going on, because you're not even interested in looking behind the first line of distraction "news", and ironically because of this, you are always one step behind the without having any "clue" what's going on.

On the contrary, we are all quite interested in the truth. It has become important for everyone interested in the truth to learn the skills of detecting propaganda techniques.

That is why it is disturbing when you demonstrate a strong disinterest in sharing methods of discerning that others may learn from. I understand you feel you have been attacked by some people through your efforts to spread your personal truth.

Perhaps instead of joining forums to claim you've found something that everyone must immediately download to their brains without question, you could try understanding why a forum exists first, and then act in accordance with the goals of the forum to introduce your new ideas in a patient and rational manner.

That might help you. And those you claim you are trying to help. Good luck with the next place.

I must say, I am impressed. Sitting in your car at a rest stop on the morning of 9/11, without having heard a word of news or seen a single image, you instantly figured out the Twin Towers could not have been destroyed by airplanes?

Just curious: When were you first "shaken" by the cartoon of the plane cutting right through the building? And when did you first reach the conclusion that "something of this magnitude and with the media in on it is always an intelligence operation"?

I must say, I am impressed. Sitting in your car at a rest stop on the morning of 9/11, without having heard a word of news or seen a single image, you instantly figured out the Twin Towers could not have been destroyed by airplanes?

But, Flabbergasted, how could it be? It's an enormous building. (At that time only one had collapsed I guess). I suppose it was just from my experience that I knew that. I'd lived in NYC for about 13 years. I knew the buildings were engineered to withstand planes because I'd seen a picture of the Empire State Bldg w part of a smaller plane sticking out of it. I'd been in Tower #1 -- just once-- to see the sunset from a restaurant called Windows, so I knew it was mammoth. But all that aside I think I would have known it anyway. I mean a plane is just much too small to destroy an immense building. I'm sorry, but how could anyone NOT know that?

I knew the wing-tanks couldn't hold enough fuel to immerse the girders of the whole building, and instantly recalled the few images in my memory of steel manufacturing; those are serious forges, man. And looking at my Chinese friend and trying to reach him with the absurdity of what he was believing I thought of the Chinese failure at backyard steel-making under Mao. I mean, if you're being logical it's totally convincing: If you can't melt a little steel in a backyard forge, how could you melt huge quantities at a distance using a small amount of fuel-- and OUTSIDE a forge?

When were you first "shaken" by the cartoon of the plane cutting right through the building

I wasn't shaken by the cartoon, but just by the realization that other people had found it convincing. I never followed the story of 9/11 after that day. I was busy w other things & was only barely aware of the "pancaking" explanation. I did buy one book on 9/11 which laid out many aspects that didn't jive.It wasn't until I got a computer 7 years later that it occurred to me that I'd never seen the 9/11 picture of the plane going into the building. So I googled it and this cartoon came up, and I think I said out loud, "No, no, not the mockup-- the actual "event" (what was shown on TV)." I think I spent at least 10 minutes trying to pull up the "real" film. When I finally acknowledged to myself that THIS is what convinced people. . . I mean, the entire plane went into the building & left a cutout of itself & it didn't pause. It was like a knife through butter. Throughout my life I have been shocked and disappointed at how little most people think for themselves. But this was a whole nother level.

when did you first reach the conclusion that "something of this magnitude and with the media in on it is always an intelligence operation"?

Only at the moment that I uttered it. I was surprised at my own words, but upon reflection thought it must be true. I knew that Oklahoma City-- the Murrah Bldg-- was done by some segment of our govt because I'd followed it & seen Gen. Partin's report. And since it was a covert op, who else but Intelligence must have done it? I also knew about the Reece Cmte, the Church Commission, the Federal Reserve, and that the original 3 TV stations were started by Intelligence.

But I still would not have instantly connected 9/11 to Intelligence except that when I read about that German banker who was assassinated the writer made a statement to the effect that events like this are always perpetrated by Intelligence, and I had paused at that.

I am sure that you have had the experience of marvelling at the knowledge of the subconscious when it suddenly makes you a present of something, computes a conclusion that's perfectly rational. In my case it generally comes out of my mouth under social stimulation & surprises me.

I'm sorry; this is probably more than you wanted to know. We are all fascinated with our own inner workings. Thanks for your interest.

I had only limited use of library computers til 7 years after 9/11. I wasn't interested in 9/11: I hadn't any doubt it was an op, and I tried to reach people around me, but I didn't yet know about chat rooms where you could potentially influence other people's beliefs. I was more a BOOK person. After I got a computer I became aware of many 9/11 videos with comment areas, and controversy about type of explosive, plane/no plane, etc. But it seemed useless to me to gain more mastery over the details except as entertainment.

I didn't believe that I could better persuade others by knowing more detail: I couldn't believe there was anybody out there thinking, "Yeah it's impossible for a plane to destroy an immense building, and yeah the tiny amount of fuel in the tanks couldn't have even wet the girders, and yeah you need a forge to melt steel and yeah planes can't cut through buildings-- but I just have a few questions about 9/11 & till those are answered I'm gonna go right on believing the media." These are overwhelming, sufficient-in-themselves manifest facts.

Logical discussion I understand. But how do you urge someone to pay attention to their own percepts, aided by ordinary familiarity with small, hollow, fragile airplanes and colossal concrete & steel structures?

Obviously I was wrong in thinking that people who seemingly ignored near-perceptual evidence couldn't be persuaded, because over the years many more people have awakened. They must have processed the event differently than I did, or perhaps were then too young.But for me, once I had seen the reality, I simply could not put myself in the position of those who had not, so I was useless for persuasion. I couldn't unring the bell.